This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Itamar attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.
A fact from 2011 Itamar attack appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that, in the Itamar attack, five members of a family were stabbed to death in their beds in the Israeli settlement of Itamar in the West Bank?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
The JC source does is not by any politician, and does not quote any politician. Removal of this with a misleading edit summary that says "politicians are not reliable sources" is bad enough, doing it a second time without any edit summary or discussion on the talk page, and misleadingly marking this as a "minor" change is probably enough for an AE case. I am now adding another source, from a peer reviewed academic journal, which will hopefully put a stop to the disruption. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but claiming that someone was decapitated is an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. I have been completely unable to corroborate this claim from quality reliable sources. The only sources you have added are an opinion piece written by a British politician, Louise Bagshaw, and an opinion piece from a jewish journal citing the Bagshaw claim with a follow-up piece posted by the same author. Neither politicians nor opinion pieces are considered to be reliable sources. The fourth source you added, to ME forum, actually contradicts your claim as it states only that the infant was "nearly" decapitated. This simply isn't solid enough sourcing for such an exceptional claim, particularly as there appear to be no quality news sources supporting it. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, claiming that Islamic terrorists behead people is not an exceptional claim - it is a standard mode of operation for them. Regardless, the article originally had an op-ed making this claim, but I added 2 NEWS pieces, not op-eds,, which repeat the claim in the context of complaining about the lack of coverage, and a 4th source, which says nearly the same thing. I will shortly add several more ([3][4]), and let me warn you that further disruption - removal of well sourced information, misrepresentation of what the sources say (e.g: clamming they are quotes from politicians when they are not), misrepresentation of what the sources are (claiming they are op-eds when they are not) etc.. -will be taken to AE where such behavior has been found to be worthy of topic bans. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is not an "exceptional claim" to state that a person who used a knife to kill a bunch of children actually decapitated one of them.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 15:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, because it is adding a charge of mutilation to one of murder. Regardless, I can accept the Jerusalem Post statement provided it is properly attributed and not in the lede per wp:undue, ie, it should say something like "according to David Ha'ivri of the Shomrom Liason Office". If any such mention is made however, it should also be mentioned that several sources have only said the infant was almost decapitated, while mention should also be made that major news sources reported the crime differently. Personally, I think the article would be better off without such details, but if you insist on adding them they should be reported in accordance with what the various sources have said. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we can also make it clear that major news sources have stated that the baby was almost decapitated instead of actually decapitated. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's exactly one source that says "almost decapitated", and 5 reliable sources (JC, JL, WJD, NR and JP) that say decapitated , one of them attributing the claim to Ha'ivri. There's no need to attribute claims when 4 different sources state it as factual in a news report, but if it makes you happy, I'll include the attribution in the lead, and also clarify, in the body, that there was one source that said "almost decapitated". Note that you are now edit warring against the opinion of two editors. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lede says this, and it is not good.
According to David Ha'ivri[4], and as reported by multiple sources[5] the infant was decapitated.[6 Of the sources given DH and Louise Bagshawe say that the child was decapitated, and the world jewish daily acount says that the child was decapitated by some accounts. This does not constitute multiple sources, and neither DH or LB give any indication that this is anything other than a personal opinion.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following what the issue of simply saying that "the infant was decapitated." That's the news plain and simple (unfortunately).KenPAdams (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inthis edit, user Plot Spoiler added a link to this web page on the site for daylife.com, a firm that hawks "simply amazing cloud publishing software" for managing website content, according to its "about us" page. I've reverted the addition of this; it's so obviously not a reliable source for the purpose that I'm amazed anyone would attempt to introduce it. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher of that photo is Getty Images, which I believe is a reliable source (if you do a little digging, you'll find the image is actually credited to an AFP photog, but I'll leave that as an exercise). Daylife is just a place they chose to exhibit it. You can think of it as the photographer being the author, Getty being the publisher and daylife as the library. So it's not so "obvious" and no reason for you to be "amazed". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed for now. We need to cite a reliable source for the description of the photo. I assume Getty/AFP or a media outlet that qualifies as an RS has published this image with this description or thereabouts somewhere. That's the source we need to cite. I only had a very quick look and couldn't find it. I'm short of time at the moment so if you know where it was published NMMNG could you restore it with the new URL ? I think it needs to stay out until then. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just had another quick look on Getty and elsewhere. Here's the image [5]. Caption reads "A Palestinian man distributes sweets in the streets of the southern Gaza Strip town of Rafah on March 12, 2011 to celebrate an attack which killed five Israeli settlers at the Itamar settlement near the West Bank city of Nablus." We could cite that. Alternatively NYPost. Take your pick. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think we shouldn't use daylife, by the way? As far as I'm aware, they keep original captions (they host stuff for a large number of news outlets including al-Jazeera, Reuters, etc, see http://www.daylife.com/our-clients/). I recently raised a similar question about youtube at RS/N, and my impression is that this sort of site is allowed, assuming the original source is a reliable one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly because things like this will happen, it will get removed because it is not obviously an RS for anything (note that says 'not obviously' rather than 'obviously not'). I think the reliability of image-aggregation sites is ambiguous (or let's say legitimately 'questionable' to use the RS term) especially if they haven't been taken to RSN. www.daylife.com maybe be fine, I don't know, but the ambiguity is easily avoided but just citing the original source or a secondary source that published the photo. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This site is owned by Getty and the NYT, among others. It's not just some photo aggregation site. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. Here's the page with the investors to save others looking if they stumble across this discussion. http://www.daylife.com/about-us/meet-the-team/ In that case it looks fine to use it directly as the source to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on Itamar attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2011 Itamar attack → Itamar massacre – Per WP:COMMONNAME the title of Itamar massacre is the most common English-language term used to describe this event.
Searching up "2011 Itamar attack" in quotes will reveal 512 results compared to in 4,380 for "Itamar massacre." And this is excluding the possibility the wording could be rephrased to, say, "Massacre in Itamar."
Looking at most news articles on this event show that most seem to refer to this as a massacre:
Oppose - to begin with the Washington Post article is a blogpost by Jennifer Rubin, not a news article. What the Washington Post actually says in its news articles is killing. The NYTimes calls it a fatal stabbing, the BBC calls it killing, again BBC killings, the Guardian once used massacre, but also used killing, and again killings. It is simply not true that most third party reliable sources use massacre, and the ghits argument above is fatally flawed in that it uses "2011 Itamar attack" in quotes but just "Itamar massacre" without any date. Yes, Israeli sources predominantly use "massacre", just like they predominantly use "terrorist" for any Palestinian committing an act of violence but not any Israeli doing the same. We should follow the international usage and call this "killings" or some variant. nableezy - 23:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles (with the exception of one of the BBC links) were written shortly after the attack happened. A WP:COMMONNAME doesn't usually pop up in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
Look how English-language newspapers covered the Tiananmen square massacre right after it happened, for instance. Notice the apparent lack of the words "Tiananmen square massacre."
That international sources generally dont pay any attention to this at all after the immediate aftermath suggest more that this is a WP:NOTNEWS violation as opposed to having developed a common name later. The NYT for example never once refers to an Itamar massacre. Neither does the BBC, neither The Times of London, or the LA Times. The reliable books that I find using it generally do it in their references to some Israeli news article about it. If we are using a descriptive title because this event has no common name, and I think it very clear that there is no common name for this event, then it needs to be neutral. I'd support 2011 Itamar murders, as attack is a bit understated, but massacre is as identifiably POV as 2011 Itamar settlement operation would be on the opposing side of things. (And actually, look at your WaPo link on Tiananmen. Youll find it uses massacre almost immediately.) nableezy - 04:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing widespread use of the term massacre. This may potentially be because this would usually refer to a larger-scale attack involving more organised groups. Coverage from April 2011 by France24 for example refers to the crime as a "murder". Coverage about the sentencing of the perpetrators in 2012 by Haaretzdid not use "massacre". I feel the sources using the term massacre tend to be more POV sources, such as the Washington Institute or the Israeli Foreign Ministry. AusLondonder (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
